Dr Vlad Butnaru faced two charges, the first of which was that in May 2021, he had signed a passport and/or passport application for a horse and electronically signed a declaration stating that he “had read the above microchip, which had previously been implanted for the animal” when, in fact, the microchip had not been inserted into any horse and he had not read it.
The second charge was that, in relation to the matters set out in the first charge, Dr Butnaru’s signed declaration was false, and that he had acted dishonestly and misleadingly, he risked undermining procedures designed to promote animal welfare, and failed to take sufficient steps to ensure that the microchip number recorded for the horse was accurate.
Dr Butnaru admitted the first charge on all counts, and that the declaration he had signed was false.
He also admitted that his conduct was misleading and that he had failed to take sufficient steps to ensure that the microchip number recorded for the horse was accurate.
However, he denied that his conduct had been dishonest and that he had risked undermining a procedure designed to promote animal welfare.
In its decision, the committee noted that Dr Butnaru kept introducing new versions of what happened for the first time at the hearing and changed his account as he went along, as well as being evasive when answering questions.
The Committee therefore felt that Dr Butnaru could not be considered to be a reliable witness, and whilst it did not know the true reason why he was prepared to sign a false declaration on a passport application, it was satisfied that he'd made a false declaration dishonestly.
The Committee also found that Dr Butnaru had failed to take sufficient steps to ensure that the microchip number recorded for the horse was accurate as, if the passport had been issued on a false premise because of misleading information provided by Dr Butnaru, then it could not function as it was meant to which, in the Committee’s view, clearly risked undermining procedures designed to protect animal welfare.
The Committee found that Dr Butnaru had breached the parts 6.2 and 6.5 of the Code of Professional Conduct, as well as Principle 1 of the 10 Principles of Certification, namely that ‘a veterinarian should certify only those matters which: a) are within his or her own knowledge; b) can be ascertained by him or her personally; c) are the subject of supporting evidence from an authorised veterinarian who has personal knowledge of the matters in question; or d) are the subject of checks carried out by an Officially Authorised Person (OAP).’
The Committee found there were no mitigating factors.
Aggravating factors, on the other hand, were that Dr Butnaru had participated in premeditated misconduct, made financial gain from his actions as he was paid to make the false declaration, abused his professional position, and showed blatant or wilful disregard of the Horse Passport System and of the role of the RCVS and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession.
The Committee found that all proven charges amounted to Disgraceful Conduct in a Professional Respect.
On considering the sanction, the Committee once again considered the aggravating factors, as well as additional mitigating factors in that Dr Butnaru had no previous disciplinary history, showed limited insight by admitting to some of the charges, showed expressions of remorse, and was provided with a positive testimonial.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was cognisant of the importance of a veterinary surgeon’s signature on any document.
"This should have been obvious to any veterinary surgeon, but particularly someone of Dr Butnaru’s 11 years’ experience (at the time of signing).
"The Committee was well aware of the impact and ramifications for Dr Butnaru of any decision to remove him from the Register, but had to weigh his interests with those of the public.
“In doing so it took account of the context and circumstances of the case, all matters of personal mitigation, Dr Butnaru’s previous unblemished record and the need to act proportionately.
"However, the Committee was of the view that the need to uphold proper standards of conduct within the veterinary profession, together with the public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession of veterinary surgeons and protecting the welfare of animals, meant that a period of suspension would not be sufficient.
"His actions were fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the Register and thus the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in all the circumstances of this case was that of removal from the Register.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
The RCVS said: "We understand that there are very strong opinions about the ban, and we respect the rights of individuals to make their own decisions.
"However, expressing these opinions can never justify or include the harassment and abuse of individual vets, vet nurses or their practice colleagues."
The BVA added: “The Government’s XL Bully ban is also placing additional pressure on veterinary teams who are doing their best in very challenging circumstances to help keep responsible XL Bully owners with their pets wherever possible.
"Their commitment extends to supporting clients with any decision-making around euthanasia in individual cases.
"It’s simply unacceptable for these professionals to face additional challenges through abuse, intimidation or threats.
"Such actions can have a hugely negative impact on individual vets and the wider team."
Resources:
Photo: Dlexus
The RCVS has launched a survey asking recent graduates from UK veterinary schools to share their experiences of the role played by extra-mural studies (EMS) while studying for their degree.
The aim of the online survey, which has been emailed to all of the 2012 and 2013 UK veterinary graduates for whom the College holds email addresses, is to take a snapshot of how EMS placements - whether pre-clinical or clinical - are working in practice and their value in educational terms.
Christine Warman, RCVS Head of Education, said: "In 2009 we carried out a review into EMS arrangements and, in light of this, we want to gather evidence on current practice in order to build up a picture of how EMS is now working and the role that it plays in the learning process for veterinary students. This evidence will inform any future discussions about EMS.
"So, for example, we would like to find out what students gained from EMS that they could not have learnt from their core studies alone and gather further information on the process of identifying and arranging EMS placements."
Recent graduates taking part in the survey, which takes around 10 to 15 minutes to complete, can supply their name and email address or, alternatively, there is the option of responding anonymously. The survey should be completed by Friday 14 February. Those 2012 and 2013 graduates who have not received an email with the link to the survey, and who wish to take part, should email: education@rcvs.org.uk
For more information on EMS, or the survey, contact the RCVS Education Department on 020 7202 0791 or education@rcvs.org.uk. Further guidance about EMS for both students and placement providers can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/ems which includes a link to the RCVS Find a Vet service where students can search for practices providing EMS.
The first charge related to his conviction on two counts of common assault by beating two individuals at an incident in December 2016, as a result of which he was made subject to a community order and a restraining order, as well as being fined and made to pay a victim surcharge and costs.
The second charge related to him undertaking, or attempting to undertake non-emergency surgery on the eyelid of one of the individuals referred to in the first charge, and administering, or attempting to administer, a Prescription-Only Veterinary Medicines to the same person.
The third charged related to an allegation that he had supplied the same individual with a Prescription-Only Medication other than in accordance with a valid prescription.
The second charge and third charges related to incidents which occurred some considerable time before the assault, not as a consequence of it.
At the outset of the hearing Mr Sutcliffe admitted the first and second charges against him and that these constituted serious professional misconduct. He denied the third charge. In relation to that charge the Committee found that, having considered the totality of the evidence, it was unable to be sure that the College had proved the allegation to the requisite standard of proof, namely so that the Committee was sure. Accordingly Charge 3 was dismissed.
The Committee decided that the convictions in the first charge rendered Mr Sutcliffe unfit to practise veterinary surgery and that his conduct in Charge 2 constituted serious professional misconduct.
The Committee then went on to consider sanction.
The Committee considered the aggravating features for both charges. For the first charge it considered the actual injury to one of his victims and risk of injury to the other, noting also that both of his victims were vulnerable people and one was a child, and that the overall incident during which the assaults occurred lasted over a seven hour period.
For the second charge, aggravating factors were that the non-emergency surgery performed by Mr Sutcliffe was wholly inappropriate, that there was a risk of injury to the individual on whom he performed the surgery and that his conduct was reckless.
The mitigating factors considered by the Committee were that Mr Sutcliffe recognised the gravity of the findings against him and demonstrated insight into the allegations, that the incident in charge 1, though prolonged, was an isolated one, that the incident in charge 2 was consensual and did not result in actual harm and that neither charge had any connection with Mr Sutcliffe’s veterinary practice, nor did they affect client care or animal welfare.
Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "As recognised by the Committee, the respondent has displayed insight as to the seriousness of his behaviour. Having regard to the evidence of all the character witnesses and the written testimonials the Committee accepts that the respondent’s conduct as set out in charges 1 and 2 was wholly out of character and, therefore, there is no significant risk of repeat behaviour. The Committee considers that the respondent would be fit to return to practise, having regard to his excellent track record as a veterinary surgeon to date, after any period of suspension.
"Having regards to the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case, the Committee has decided that it is sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct to give a direction for suspension of the respondent’s name from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons.
"The Committee considers that the period of suspension must be sufficient to mark the seriousness of the charges but must be proportionate and fair in the circumstances of the case. The Committee has therefore concluded that the appropriate period of suspension is six months."
Mr Sutcliffe has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to appeal to the Privy Council.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has dismissed a case against a Staffordshire veterinary surgeon, having found that his convictions under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Public Order Act 1986 did not make him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
At the one-day hearing, the Committee heard that Mr Richard Conlon of Warrendale Veterinary Care Centre, Biddulph, was convicted of one instance of common assault and one public order offence involving threatening, insulting or abusive language, both of which occurred during an altercation in a public house in Biddulph on 28 November 2009. The court ordered Mr Conlon to pay two fines of £300 each, a victim surcharge of £15, and £700 of court costs.
As the facts involved in Mr Conlon's offences had been proved by the court that convicted him, and Mr Conlon admitted to his convictions, the Committee considered only whether these offences made him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
The Committee was advised that although the convictions were unrelated to Mr Conlon's professional practice, any criminal conviction may call into question a veterinary surgeon's fitness to practise if the conduct for which they are convicted raises doubts over their capability as a veterinary surgeon. Convictions that damage the wider public interest in the good reputation of the profession and public confidence can also raise questions about fitness to practise and may be considered.
Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, Vice-Chairman Professor Sheila Crispin said: "In reaching our decision, it is important to emphasise that the Disciplinary Committee does not condone Mr Conlon's behaviour in any way. We accept the submission of the College 'that it is incumbent on any veterinary surgeon to act with decorum and not to engage in any violent, aggressive or intimidating behaviour,' and, on any view, for a veterinary surgeon to get involved in a brawl in a public house is unacceptable behaviour.
"In the Committee's judgment this was a one-off incident of brief duration with no premeditation on Mr Conlon's part; fortunately no significant injury was suffered by anybody involved. From the nature of the charges and the sentence of the court, it can be seen that this was at very much the lower end of seriousness and, as is accepted by the College, involves no concern about Mr Conlon's ability to practise as a veterinary surgeon."
The Committee ordered the charges be dismissed.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton was originally removed from the Register in June 1994 for failing to maintain his practice’s equipment and facilities in working order such that it evidenced a total disregard of basic hygiene and care for animals, thereby bringing the profession into disrepute.
The restoration hearing on Monday 15 May was Mr Seymour-Hamilton’s fifth application for restoration, with previous applications being submitted but refused in July 1995, June 2010, January 2015 and March 2016. However, as the Committee made its decision on the merits of the case before it, those previous applications were not considered as relevant to its decision.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton told the Committee that he currently works as a herbalist and naturopath for humans and wished to be restored to the Register so he could include animals in his research, citing his treatment of one of his dogs as evidence.
The Committee rejected his application on a number of grounds, including the impact on animal welfare should Mr Seymour-Hamilton be restored to the Register; the length of time he had been off the Register and the fact that he was therefore not up-to-date with contemporary veterinary practice and professional conduct; that his efforts to keep up-to-date in terms of knowledge, skills and developments in practice were insufficient; and his lack of evidence of public support for him or his work.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has very great concerns about the future of the welfare of animals in the event of the applicant being permitted to have his name restored to the Register. He has made it clear that whilst he has no intention to return to routine veterinary general practice, he would intend to treat animals and to continue his research using animals. The Committee observes that were he to be restored to the Register, there would be no power to prevent the applicant practising as a veterinary surgeon in any way he may choose."
He added: "The applicant has now been off the Register for nearly 23 years. It will be apparent to anyone that the veterinary profession today is in many respects different from what it was 23 years ago, (eg: in terms of medical understanding and its own regulation). The Committee is far from persuaded that the passage of 23 years has not had a negative impact on the applicant’s ability to practise safely and competently as a veterinary surgeon at this present time."
The course has been made available after its authors, Dr Katherine Wakelin and Sarah Corthorne from the University of Surrey, received a Mind Matters Grant to conduct research which found it improved the mental wellbeing of veterinary professionals.
Katherine and Sarah will also be hosting a webinar from 7pm – 8pm on Tuesday 3rd September to discuss the importance of self-compassion, provide an overview of their research, as well as information on the course itself.
Katherine said: “Our recent randomised control trial has shown the course to significantly improve resilience and self-compassion and reduce rumination and self-criticism amongst veterinarians.
"Therefore, Sarah and I are delighted to now be disseminating the CFT course freely to the veterinary profession, so that as many people as possible are able to benefit from the evidence-based resource.
“Even though our research was conducted on veterinary surgeons, we hope that the course will be useful to all those working in the veterinary team as the content can be applied in a number of contexts.
“Our webinar will explain more about our research, as well as some of the science behind the effectiveness of the course in a veterinary context.
"So, if you are interested in learning more about how CFT may be able to help you and your team, both in a personal and professional capacity, please do come along.”
In order to access the online compassion course, individuals are invited to complete a short questionnaire before and after watching one video (10-15 minutes long) each day for 14 days. The aim of the video intervention is to develop self-compassion skills and reduce self-criticism. This will also allow Katherine and Sarah to evaluate the ongoing impact that the videos are having on those working in the sector.
https://vetmindmatters.org/resources/free-online-compassion-course-for-veterinarian-mental-wellbeing/
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has agreed to accept undertakings from a Dorset veterinary surgeon, Philippa Ann Rodale MBE, in which she requests that her name is removed from the RCVS Register of Veterinary Surgeons with effect from 31 July 2015, and undertakes never to apply to be restored to it.
The Committee met on Monday 17 August, resuming a hearing which had been adjourned on 20 July. The adjournment had been made to allow Ms Rodale time to submit formal responses to the charges against her and indicate whether she agreed with them. In the event, as outlined by a letter from her solicitors received by the College on 14 August, Ms Rodale declined to comment on the charges and did not admit to any of them.
Ms Rodale did not attend the hearing on 17 August, however, the Committee decided to continue in her absence, on the understanding that, as evidenced by her solicitors’ letter, she was fully aware of the hearing and had voluntarily waived her right to be presented and represented.
The original charges related to Ms Rodale’s standards of practice (in relation to issues such as biosecurity, hygiene, in-patient facilities, drug storage and the disposal of hazardous waste, among other things) and also to a test for Intradermal Comparative Tuberculin. The charges relating to her standards of practice did not have complainants, as the College raised the matters itself; with respect to the Tuberculin test charge, the Animal and Plant Health Agency, as the relevant body, raised no objection to the proposed course of accepting undertakings.
In accepting the undertakings, the Committee felt that a contested hearing that could take up to seven days and involve up to eight witnesses for the College and up to three for the Respondent would not be in the public interest. Furthermore, since the 20 July hearing, Ms Rodale had retired and closed her practice. The Committee also noted that there had been no previous disciplinary findings against her, in what was otherwise a long and unblemished career.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee is satisfied that the undertakings offered by the Respondent protect the welfare of animals since the Respondent has now retired and is no longer in practice. It is also satisfied that the reputation of the profession is upheld since the undertakings offered go beyond any sanction which the Committee could impose at the conclusion of a contested hearing, were any of the Heads of Charge to be found proved. It considers that it would not be proportionate or in the public interest for there to be a lengthy contested hearing.”
The RCVS and the BVA have published the Vet Futures report: their vision for how the veterinary profession should look in 2030, coupled with 34 recommendations for change.
The report, which represents the culmination of a year of engagement, consultation and research with the veterinary profession, veterinary nurses, members of the wider veterinary team, key stakeholders, animal owners and the general public, says that in 2030 vets should be a leading force for animal health and welfare and valued for their wider roles in society. They should be confident, resilient, healthy and well supported, and benefit from exceptional leadership. And there should be a broad range of diverse and rewarding veterinary careers, as well as thriving, innovative and user-focused businesses.
While the focus of Vet Futures has been on veterinary surgeons, Vet Futures engaged with the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council and British Veterinary Nursing Association, as well as individual veterinary nurses, and the College says that many of the ambitions should resonate with members of both professions. It goes on to recommend that the veterinary nursing profession should build on the work of Vet Futures to develop its own clear vision and ambitions.
The recommendations within the report include:
Other recommendations include developing an animal welfare strategy for the profession, increasing collaboration with medical professionals and environmental organisations, adopting a more strategic long-term outlook for research funding, and exploring how to encourage a more diverse profession.
RCVS President Bradley Viner said: "The Vet Futures report is the culmination of a year of research and engagement with thousands of members of the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions, which has given us a very firm foundation on which to build our ambitions and recommendations. We are extremely grateful to every individual who has contributed in some way to the project, and helped us to seize the initiative.
"Over the years the veterinary profession has proved itself to be adaptable and able to face challenges head on, and we have no doubt that by working together we will realise our joint vision of a profession in charge of its future. Ultimately, we all want a profession that is confident in itself and one in which members are proud to call themselves veterinary surgeons."
Sean Wensley, BVA President, added: "Vet Futures has proved to be an exciting, engaging and truly ambitious project for the veterinary profession and it has created a fantastic level of debate and engagement.
"The report we are launching today is not the end of the story; it is the beginning of the next chapter. It is crucial that we maintain the momentum of the project so we will be inviting members of the veterinary professions to step forward and join a new Vet Futures Action Group to help us turn the recommendations into actions and drive forward activity."
The full report can be downloaded here.
The trial is the result of a six-week consultation held by the College in June 2016, asking for the profession’s views on a proposed new system of CPD - one that concentrates less on hours logged and more on interactive, reflective learning and measuring the impact that CPD has on the individual’s practice and patient health outcomes.
The College says that while an overall majority of the 3,357 people who responded to the College’s consultation agreed with the proposed changes to the CPD requirement, certain elements received less support than others. The lowest amount of support was received for the ‘reflection’ component with 35% of respondents disagreeing with it.
The RCVS Education Committee and VN Council therefore agreed that a pilot of a new outcomes-based approach should be held during 2017 before making a recommendation to RCVS Council. The RCVS Council approved this proposal at its meeting on 10 November 2016, after which 117 volunteers were recruited, 60 of whom were able to attend the training days.
A veterinary surgeon who signed up for the pilot and works in veterinary industry, Gina Dungworth, said: "I really appreciate the acknowledgement of non-clinical CPD practices, and while I was originally sceptical of the proposed system the pilot day has so far been clear and helpful."
A veterinary nurse volunteer, Lindsey Raven Emrich, said: "CPD is such a varied part of a veterinary professional’s career, and it very much depends on the person how easy it is to do. I find myself doing a lot of reflection as a natural part of reading articles, and I’m hoping this new system will expand that way of thinking into other areas of CPD."
The volunteers will now pilot the new proposed system and report to Education Committee, VN Council and RCVS Council.
Ms Bowler faced four sets of charges, each of which contained sub-charges, summarised as follows:
Despite being served with the Notice of Inquiry, Ms Bowler decided not to attend the hearing due to ill-health but was represented by a counsel and solicitors.
The Committee did not find that Ms Bowler was medically unfit to attend on the basis of the medical evidence before it.
The Committee also concluded that it was in the public interest and interests of Ms Bowler to proceed with the hearing in her absence so that it could be concluded in a timely manner.
Ms Bowler’s counsel applied for parts of the hearing to be heard in private on health grounds, which was approved by the Committee.
It was also determined that any parts in the Committee’s decision or hearing that referred to Ms Bowler’s health would be redacted.
At the outset of the hearing, Ms Bowler’s counsel made admissions to five of the sub-charges which the Committee therefore found proven.
She also made some partial admissions in relations to a further 11 sub-charges.
After hearing a wide range of evidence, both written and oral, from Ms Bowler, the College, from clients and from an expert witness, the Committee found all charges proved except for four sub-charges.
On deciding whether the proved charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee took the following aggravating factors into account.
In mitigation:
In all, the Committee decided that the seriousness of the misconduct meant that a sanction was necessary to meet the public interest.
When deciding on whether to issue a reprimand with or without a warning, the Committee once again decided that the misconduct was too serious to allow for this.
It also decided that a reprimand and/or warning was not sufficient to protect animals and the wider public interest.
It then went onto consider whether a sanction of ‘suspension’ was sufficient but noted that it did not have enough evidence to show that Ms Bowler had shown significant insight to continue to practise unrestricted in the future.
The Committee eventually concluded that Ms Bowler’s conduct was incompatible with remaining on the Register.
Neil Slater, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee decided that the broad range of Ms Bowler’s misconduct which had spanned three years and eight months and involving injury or risk of injury to 18 animals, was incompatible with remaining on the Register and the public interest required removal from the Register even when all of Ms Bowler’s mitigation was taken into account.
“The Committee decided that it did not have sufficient evidence overall on Ms Bowler’s insight, current competence and future risk to persuade it that the lesser sanction of suspension was appropriate in this case.
“Although Ms Bowler had shown some insight, the Committee decided that she would need to have provided detailed evidence about her current practice before it could decide that she no longer represented a risk to animals in the future.
“The Committee therefore concluded that ‘removal from the Register’ was the appropriate and proportionate sanction because there had been a serious departure from professional standards, a reckless disregard for professional standards, multiple cases involving harm or risk of harm to animals and because, in Ms Bowler’s absence, it had been difficult to unravel whether she had an attitudinal problem.
“These were all factors in the Disciplinary Committee Sanctions Guidance that indicated that a sanction of removal was the appropriate sanction and, in the Committee’s decision, removal from the Register was the only sanction which would meet the public interest.
"It concluded that a lesser sanction would undermine public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process.”
The webinar will discuss the importance of self-compassion and provide an overview of Katherine and Sarah’s research into the effectiveness of an online compassion focused therapy (CFT) intervention in improving the mental wellbeing of veterinary professionals.
Katherine and Sarah will also go into more detail about how to get the most out of a CFT course they have created, which will be made freely available for veterinary professionals on the Mind Matters website and on the RCVS YouTube channel .
"Therefore, Sarah and I are delighted to now be disseminating the CFT course freely to the veterinary professions, so that as many people are able to benefit from the evidence-based resource as possible.
Katherine and Sarah’s compassion focused therapy course will be made available on the Mind Matters website in due course. In order to access the online compassion course, individuals are invited to complete a short questionnaire before and after watching one 10-15 minute video each day for 14 days, with the aim of the video intervention being to develop self-compassion skills and reduce self-criticism.
https://vetmindmatters.org/events/
Underlying the plan are three 'Brexit Principles', devised by the College and formally adopted by RCVS Council, which will guide the College’s relationship with the Government during the forthcoming Brexit negotiations.
The College says each Principle is supported by a number of specific policies that the College will lobby for in the coming months, all designed to positively engage with the post-referendum reality and with government policy.
The Principles are:
RCVS Chief Executive Nick Stace said: "It is crucially important for the College and the profession as a whole to think boldly about the post-Brexit future; we cannot expect government to give us all of the answers, instead we must work to find solutions ourselves so as to shape the future of the profession from within."
The College has also asked the Institute for Employment Studies (IES) to undertake research into the attitudes and intentions of all EU-graduated veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses currently working in the UK. They will all have receive a personalised email from IES with a link to this online survey, and their answers will help inform the College’s approach to Brexit. This research will help the College to understand better the impact that Brexit may already be having, how it can support EU veterinary professionals working in the UK, and build an evidence base regarding the potential impact that Brexit may have on the veterinary workforce.
For more information on the College’s Brexit activities, visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/brexit
The hearing took place in Mr Prichard's absence after he failed to respond to Colleges attempts to contact him, including by email, post, telephone and personal service of documents.
However, in its decision to proceed in Mr Prichard’s absence, the Committee confirmed that it would not hold his non-attendance against him or attach any adverse inference to that fact.
Mr Prichard was charged with taking quantities of the controlled, prescription-only drug Vetergesic from the practice’s stock other than for legitimate veterinary use.
He was further charged that he took Vetergesic from the practice by drawing it into a syringe for the purposes of self administration, and that in doing so, his conduct was dishonest.
In another set of charges, it was alleged that on five separate occasions, Mr Prichard had attended the practice to work as a veterinary surgeon whilst unfit to do so.
The final charge related to Mr Prichard’s failure to respond adequately or at all to all reasonable requests from the RCVS for his response to concerns raised about his conduct.
At the beginning of the hearing Nicole Curtis, acting on behalf of the College, read the written evidence from 11 separate witnesses outlining the facts related to the charges against Mr Prichard, including the record of an investigative meeting held by the practice in which he admitted his theft and use of the controlled drug and following which, he was dismissed from his employment.
The Committee found all the charges proven and then considered whether they amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In terms of aggravating factors the Committee found that there was a risk of injury, recklessness, premeditated and sustained misconduct, and that there was an abuse of his professional position in accessing prescription-only controlled drugs for reasons other than legitimate veterinary use.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that he had made admissions as part of the practice’s internal disciplinary investigation.
Overall, the Committee found he had breached aspects of the Code of Professional Conduct related to honesty and integrity, making animal health and welfare his first priority, appropriate use of veterinary medicines, taking steps to address physical and mental health conditions that could affect fitness to practise, responding to reasonable requests from the RCVS, and bringing the profession into disrepute.
Therefore, the Committee found him guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to all of the charges charges.
The Committee felt that, considering the seriousness of the misconduct, removal from the Register was the most appropriate decision.
Austin Kirwan, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “This is a case involving serious dishonesty, sustained over a period of time, and conduct potentially detrimental to animal welfare, as well as wilful disregard of professional regulations.
“Regrettably, Mr Prichard’s failure to engage with the College and with the regulatory process limited the options open to the Committee.
"Notwithstanding this, Mr Prichard’s disgraceful conduct is so serious that removal from the Register is the only means of protecting animals and the wider public interest which includes the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the upholding of standards.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Mr Seymour-Hamilton was originally removed from the Register in June 1994 for failing to maintain his practice’s equipment and facilities in working order and for a total disregard of basic hygiene and care for animals, thereby bringing the profession into disrepute.
The restoration hearing on 20th May was Mr Seymour-Hamilton’s seventh application for restoration. Previous applications had been heard but refused in July 1995, June 2010, February 2015, March 2016, May 2017 and April 2018. However, as the Committee makes its decision on the merits of the case before it, those previous applications were not considered as relevant to its current decision.
The Committee heard oral evidence from Mr Seymour-Hamilton and were shown clear bottles with liquid, a container with tablets and petri dishes with grown cultures as detailed documentary evidence. In respect of any concerns regarding keeping his veterinary practice up-to-date, Mr Seymour-Hamilton said that “you never lose that skill” and explained that he kept up-to-date through extensive reading and conversations with veterinary surgeons in Europe.
However, the Committee had significant concerns as to his fitness to practise safely as a veterinary surgeon for a number of reasons, including that nearly 25 years had passed since he was last in practice and that there was little, if any, evidence of him keeping up-to-date with the knowledge and skills required to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The applicant worryingly did not accept that he was in any way deskilled by the passage of time. The evidence that the applicant has provided showed limited interaction with other veterinary surgeons and there is no documented evidence of the discussions or structure of the meetings he had with veterinary surgeons in Europe.
"There is no evidence of a prolonged and intense period of re-training by way of relevant study to demonstrate that a sufficient level of competence to return to practise has been achieved. In the absence of such evidence the Committee was of the view that there would be a serious risk to the welfare of animals if the applicant was restored to the Register.
"Further, it was a grave concern to this Committee that the applicant demonstrated worrying attitudinal issues towards individuals of a different religion and his attitude to employing a minor when he knew it to be against the law. Such attitudes are incompatible with professional standards the public would expect of a veterinary surgeon."
Finally, with no evidence of public support for the applicant, the Committee concluded that the application for restoration should be refused.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended a Co. Tyrone veterinary surgeon from the Register for ten months, having found him guilty of serious professional misconduct relating to three convictions for contravening animal export regulations.
Whilst working as an Authorised Veterinary Inspector in Castlederg for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD), William Manson had falsely certified that he had inspected three consignments of sheep presented for assembly at Plumbridge Export Assembly Centre on 16 and 23 August 2009. At this week's two-day hearing, Mr Manson admitted that the convictions he had received at the Strabane Magistrates Court on 26 November 2010 made him unfit to practise veterinary surgery, but said in mitigation that he had examined the sheep nearby at Landahussy, a site he considered more suitable for a large number of animals.
The Committee was satisfied that Mr Manson believed the Landahussy site to be more suitable for large deliveries; the Committee also was satisfied that he did carry out a visual inspection of the sheep at the Landahussy site on 16 and 23 August 2009. However, the information Mr Manson provided on the three certificates was false and misleading. Mr Manson had also been reminded of the importance of complying with government regulations in a disciplinary case in 2004, following convictions for failing to notify DARD about changes in the number of sheep for which he was claiming a premium. The then Committee dismissed the case, deeming the convictions a result of his "genuine but regrettable oversight".
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Chairman, Prof Peter Lees said: "Mr Manson's actions in certifying that he had examined the sheep at an approved assembly centre when he had not done so amounted to a serious departure from professional standards. If there had been a disease outbreak on either the Plumbridge or Landahussy site, such actions would have rendered contact tracings unreliable and inaccurate."
In mitigation, the Committee accepted medical evidence and Mr Manson's testimony that he was at that time under exceptional stress. He was working long hours in difficult circumstances without an assistant, and was under considerable personal pressure as a result of his wife's serious illness. It also took into account his age (66), exceptional testimonials produced on his behalf, and the impact on the community he served.
Prof Lees said: "The Committee has concluded that the removal of Mr Manson's name from the Register is neither proportionate nor necessary in the public interest nor to protect the welfare of animals. A proportionate sanction in this case is to suspend Mr Manson's name from the Register for a period of ten months."
The Disciplinary Committee of the RCVS has approved an application for restoration to the Register from an Oxfordshire veterinary surgeon who had been struck off for false certification.
In November 2007, the Committee decided that Mr John Williams, of the Avonvale Veterinary Practice in Ratley, near Banbury, should have his name removed from the RCVS Register, having found him guilty of disgraceful professional conduct. Mr Williams had admitted signing export health certificates for three horses in October 2006 to state that they had received negative test results for the contagious equine metritis organism, before these results were actually available.
At the time, Mr Williams was working in his capacity as an Official Veterinarian (OV) for DEFRA and he had previously been suspended from his official duties on three separate occasions, on the basis of export certification irregularities. It was accepted that Mr Williams had not been dishonest, but his approach to certification was described by the Disciplinary Committee as "either irresponsible or cavalier or both".
In December 2007, Mr Williams appealed against this decision to the Privy Council but this was dismissed at a Hearing the following June. He was then removed from the Register in July 2008.
When the Committee met on Monday to consider Mr Williams' application, they heard oral and written supporting evidence from veterinary surgeons and equine clients, and oral evidence from Mr Williams himself. The Committee was satisfied that Mr Williams accepted its previous findings and fully understood their seriousness. He described his removal from the Register as a "salutary experience" which had been highly significant for him and his family, both financially and emotionally.
The Committee stated: "Although the decision of the Committee to remove [Mr Williams] from the Register sent a clear message to the profession of the importance of certification, it should be emphasised that his removal was the consequence of his actions in signing certificates which he could not verify. This followed three previous occasions on which he had similarly signed certificates when he should not have done so."
However, the Committee was satisfied that Mr Williams would not in future sign certificates when he should not do so, even under severe client pressure. It was impressed with the continuing professional development he had undertaken whilst off the Register and noted that no questions had been raised over his conduct during this time.
It concluded that Mr Williams fully understood the importance of accurate certification and that restoring his name to the Register therefore posed no risk to animal welfare. Neither the public nor the profession would benefit from Mr Williams staying off the Register for a further period.
Alison Bruce, Disciplinary Committee Chairman, said: "We would like to make it clear that we always find it distressing to remove clinically competent veterinary surgeons from the Register because of an irresponsible and cavalier attitude towards certification. This would not be necessary if veterinary surgeons were to follow the Twelve Principles of Certification annexed to the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct."
The Committee then approved Mr Williams' application and directed that his name should be restored to the Register.
The ProfCon Investigation Support (PCIS) service is a free, confidential listening and support service funded by the RCVS and its Mind Matters Initiative mental health project but delivered independently by VetSupport.me, an organisation that already offers general support services to veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
The service is provided by a group of trained and experienced volunteers who will also be able to offer support to any veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse who is acting as witness.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: “At the RCVS we recognise that being investigated in respect of alleged professional misconduct is a very stressful and trying experience that can knock confidence and, in some cases, lead to distress amongst practitioners.
“While part of the social contract of being members of regulated and protected professions is that, when accusations around professional misconduct are made, they have to be fully investigated by a regulator to determine if there is a case to answer. As a compassionate regulator we want to make sure that individuals going through this process can access the help and support they need.
“This service is staffed by a team of brilliant volunteers who already have experience in providing help and support on matters of mental health and wellbeing and have received additional training to augment their ability to provide emotional support to vets and nurses who may be under investigation.
“In our Strategic Plan for 2020-24, one of our key ambitions is to strengthen our credentials as a compassionate regulator that acts with empathy and understanding. The ProfCon Investigation Support Service is an important step in fulfilling this ambition, and I hope that it can deliver help to the people that need it.”
David McKeown, from VetSupport, added: “Whether via a phone call, an email conversation, or a meet-up over Zoom, our team of trained volunteers, all of whom are registered vets or vet nurses themselves, will support service users through the duration of an RCVS investigation.
“Through their support we will aim to help individuals going through this process maintain good mental health and wellbeing and strive to prevent more serious issues arising. The service is completely confidential and no conversations that individuals have with our volunteers will ever be shared with anyone else, including the RCVS. Nothing will be fed back to the College nor be used as part of the investigation process. It is also completely within the individual’s control as to how much information is shared with the VetSupport volunteer. There is no obligation to disclose any information other than perhaps a first name.
“We look forward to working with the RCVS to provide this very important service. Please don’t hesitate to contact us on info@vetsupport.me or visit www.vetsupport.me to find out more about the service and meet our team of supporters.”
Dr Kettle faced a charge that he had grabbed the dog, a Shih Tzu named Bella, when she was in a kennel, and/or failed to take sufficient care to ensure that Bella did not fall from her kennel, hit Bella with his hand and/or muzzle, and carried Bella only by her collar and/or scruff.
At the outset, Dr Kettle admitted that he had committed the acts as alleged and that his conduct represented serious professional misconduct.
Having taken evidence from the College and the respondent into account, the Committee considered that Dr Kettle’s actions had not only placed Bella at risk of injury but had also caused her actual injury evidenced by her tongue turning blue for a few seconds, the fact that she soiled herself and her stillness in the treatment room.
However, it also concluded that the incident was a single episode in respect of a single animal that had occurred over a period of 30 seconds, so whilst his actions were serious, they were not aggravated by being sustained or repeated over a period of time.
In terms of mitigating factors, the Committee considered that the circumstances at the time of the incident were relevant.
It found Dr Kettle to be a credible witness and accepted that, during the time that the incident occurred, he had been going through a very difficult time personally with the loss of locum staff, the increased work pressure during the pandemic and unrelated adverse comments on social media.
The Committee considered that whilst these factors did not excuse his behaviour, they had affected how Dr Kettle had reacted towards Bella on the day.
The Committee also noted from clinical records that Dr Kettle had been Bella’s veterinary surgeon for over seven years, on nine occasions prior to the incident and on seven occasions subsequently.
There has been no such evidence of any other incidents happening within this time. Dr Kettle received highly positive testimonials attesting to his usual high standards of practice, both before and since the incident, and the Committee was satisfied that this incident could properly be characterised as isolated and out of character.
Kathryn Peaty, Chair of the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “It was clear that Dr Kettle was deeply remorseful and ashamed of his actions, immediately recognising the seriousness of what he had done.
"Indeed, it was apparent to the Committee from Dr Kettle’s evidence that this remorse and regret continue to weigh heavily on him.
“In all the circumstances, although the Committee did not consider that Dr Kettle’s misconduct was at the lower end of the spectrum of seriousness, given the absence of future risk to animals or the public, and the evidence of exemplary insight, the Committee concluded that a reprimand was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.
“The Committee was satisfied that a reprimand would mark Dr Kettle’s misconduct and reassure the public that veterinary surgeons who act as Dr Kettle had done, would face regulatory consequences and sanction.”
The RCVS Council and Veterinary Nurses Council elections are now underway for 2013, and ballot papers and candidates details have been posted to all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses eligible to vote.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, said: "At a time when the College is experiencing a period of significant change, it's more important than ever that the Councils have the right personnel to help steer us along the path to becoming a first-rate regulator. The annual Councils elections represent a key opportunity for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to ensure this happens."
This year, 13 candidates, five of whom are current Council members, will contest the six available seats on RCVS Council, and four candidates are contesting the two available places on VN Council, including one existing member. The candidates are as follows:
RCVS Council
VN Council
*denotes existing Council member
For the first time this year, the College is organising an online hustings for RCVS Council candidates to allow veterinary surgeon voters to put their questions to them directly. This will be run as a free, live webinar by 'The Webinar Vet' and will take place on Tuesday, 19 March at 7pm. Questions need to have been submitted in advance as there are too many candidates to hold a debate, but veterinary surgeons can still register to listen to the hustings at www.thewebinarvet.com/rcvs. The hustings will also be recorded and available to listen again via the same web address until the voting deadline.
Votes in both elections may be cast online, by text message or by post, and must be received by 5pm on Friday, 26 April 2013. Details of how to vote are printed on the ballot papers and candidate information is also available on the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil13 and www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil13.
Anyone in need of a replacement ballot paper for RCVS Council should contact Ian Holloway (i.holloway@rcvs.org.uk / 020 7202 0727), or for VN Council, contact Annette Amato (a.amato@rcvs.org.uk / 020 7202 0713).
To ensure independence, the elections are being administered by Electoral Reform Services.
There are 13 candidates standing in this year’s election for RCVS Council, the voting period for which will open on the week commencing Monday 14 March and close at 5pm on Friday 22 April 2022.
The candidates are:
The full biographies and manifesto statements for each candidate are available to read at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote22.
To submit a question to the candidates, email: vetvote22@rcvs.org.uk or post it on the RCVS Twitter account (@theRCVS) using the hashtag #vetvote22.
Candidates will then be asked to record a short video of themselves answering two questions of their choice which will be published when the election starts.
You have until Monday 21 February 2022 to submit your question.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has refused an application for restoration to the Register by Mr Joseph Holmes, who was struck off in 2011 for serious professional misconduct associated with surgery he had carried out on a dog and two cats.
At a two-week Disciplinary Committee hearing that concluded on 14 January 2011, two separate complaints had been considered against Mr Holmes, formerly of Waltham Veterinary Clinic, Grimsby. These involved a total of 31 charges, of which 28 were found to amount to serious professional misconduct. Mr Holmes was found to have advised on and undertaken surgical procedures without sufficient clinical grounds or consideration of alternative treatment options; failed to obtain the informed consent of his clients; undertaken procedures outside his area of competence; failed to refer or discuss the option of referral to a specialist; and, failed to provide his patients with adequate pain relief.
The then-Committee directed Mr Holmes' name be removed from the Register, whereupon he appealed to the Privy Council, who dismissed his appeal on 22 December 2011, concluding that removal from the Register "was the only disposal which could properly reflect the primary need to serve both the interests of animal welfare and the reputation of the veterinary profession".
At the hearing last week the Committee considered several factors in relation to Mr Holmes' application for restoration. Although Mr Holmes gave assurances that he accepted the findings of the original hearing, this contrasted completely to the robust way in which he had challenged all of these at that hearing and the majority in his appeal. Mr Holmes had been off the Register for only 12 months - just over the minimum period before an application for restoral was permitted. The Committee took the view that the application was premature and was not satisfied that Mr Holmes truly appreciated the seriousness of the findings made against him.
In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Holmes showed deficiencies in his knowledge, such as not knowing all of the constituents of the human drug, Anadin Extra, in spite of having produced a record of continuing professional development (CPD) on analgesia and having prescribed it to a dog in the original complaint. He did not provide records of CPD for 2010, 2011 and 2012, and although recognising that working in isolation from the majority of his fellow practitioners had contributed to his failures, he had made very limited efforts to observe first-opinion veterinary practice.
The Committee accepted at face value Mr Holmes' statement that he had not worked as a veterinary surgeon whilst de-registered, and accepted that removal from the Register had had a profound effect on Mr Holmes and his family, including the sale of his practice. It noted that Mr Holmes produced only the testimonials previously submitted to the Privy Council, which were of limited scope.
Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "Having regard to all the factors set out above, the Committee regrets that it is not satisfied that the applicant is fit to be restored to the Register. Accordingly, the application is refused."
The trial starts on Monday 11 July and will continue for three months to allow the College to determine levels of demand for such a service and, therefore, whether it should be made permanent.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Acting Registrar, said: "This was a potential service identified in our Strategic Plan as a way of allowing veterinary professionals to have informal, confidential, discussions with members of the Professional Conduct Department about potential fitness to practise issues, short of formally raising a concern.
"Although any discussions via the new reporting line or email address will be confidential, if a veterinary surgeon or a veterinary nurse subsequently wishes to raise a formal concern about another veterinary professional, then they generally will need to identify both themselves and the individual in order to take it through our investigation process.
"We have developed a bespoke concerns form for members of the professions who do want to raise concerns about other professionals."
Veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who wish to contact a member of the RCVS Professional Conduct Department in confidence can do so by calling 07599 958 294 between 9am and 5pm, or by emailing reporting@rcvs.org.uk.
The bespoke concerns from for members of the profession can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns.
Three members (one vet, one new grad and one nurse) are being sought to join a new engagement group tasked with raising awareness of the importance of CPD for veterinary surgeons and nurses, supporting members in how to reflect on their CPD as a way of consolidating learning, and considering plans for how the benefits of CPD and the VetGDP can be communicated to the professions.
The group will also oversee and update CPD and VetGDP guidance documents, as well as overseeing updates to the VetGDP Adviser and VetGDP Peer Reviewer training and guidance.
RCVS Council member Dr Olivia Cook MRCVS will be chairing the group.
She said: “The Engagement Group has been set up in recognition that, although the majority of the professions are engaged with meeting their CPD requirements and completing the VetGDP, there are still those who feel confused about the requirements or remain uncompliant for other reasons, and we would like very much to help them.
“Therefore, this is an exciting opportunity for anyone who wants to play an active part in advancing veterinary standards by ensuring that as many members of the professions as possible have the benefits of lifelong learning in their own practice and their ongoing work for animal health and welfare. In doing so they will help grow public confidence in the professions.
“From the VetGDP perspective, we’re particularly keen that there’s a strong peer-to-peer element, so that those who are doing the VetGDP, or have just recently completed it, are using their recent experience and understanding to evolve the policy and drive engagement.”
Applicants who are interested will have until Friday 30 August to apply to become members of the CPD and VetGDP Engagement Group and are invited to send a concise email to CPD@rcvs.org.uk explaining their experience and how they feel that can contribute to work of the committee.
The RCVS is looking for two Advanced Practitioners working in practice who have completed a designated CertAVP qualification to join the Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice (CertAVP) Subcommittee to help actively advance the standards and policies of the RCVS CertAVP.
Applicants who are interested also have until Friday 30 August to apply to become members.
Applicants are invited to send an email to certavp@rcvs.org.uk with a summary of their experience and what skills and knowledge you feel that you can bring to this committee.
Finally, the College is also looking to recruit examiners for the Statutory Membership Examination, from 2025 onwards.
Examiners need to have been Members of the RCVS for a minimum of three years and be familiar with the day one competences for new registrants and the standards expected of final year students and new graduates. Experience as an assessor or examiner is preferred, although not essential as training will be provided. The College is looking for examiners with knowledge across a range of species domains including equine, veterinary public health, farm and small animal.
Contact Jenny Soreskog-Turp, RCVS Postgraduate Lead, on j.soreskog-turp@rcvs.org.uk
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against an Essex-based veterinary surgeon, having found him not guilty of charges relating to the measurement of horses and ponies.
At the ten-day hearing, Marc Auerbach of Oak Equine Veterinary Surgery, Ongar, answered charges relating to measuring the height of 29 horses/ponies presented for measurement by two agents in early 2009. Dr Auerbach had undertaken these measurements as an Official Measurer (OM) for the Joint Measuring Board (JMB), which provides a system for independently measuring and certifying the size of competition horses/ponies. An animal's financial value relates to its size, with larger animals being more likely to win in their competitive class.
The case centred on the expected accuracy of such measurements, whether Dr Auerbach was dishonest in colluding with the agents, or whether there had been signs of malpractice which a reasonably competent vet acting as an OM ought to detect.
From evidence submitted, the Committee determined a margin for measurement accuracy, and consequently dismissed from its consideration ten animals where the difference between the initial measurement and the re-measurement was 3 cm or less. However, the College submitted that the average difference was so great that, either, Dr Auerbach had failed to take sufficient steps to ensure that the correct measurements were recorded, or else he had been dishonest. Dr Auerbach's Counsel accepted the inference that presenting agents were dishonest, but denied that Dr Auerbach was dishonest or had failed to pick up signs of malpractice on the part of the agents.
The Committee was of the view that there may be unscrupulous presenters capable of materially interfering with the height of horses. While it was unable to determine with certainty the extent to which it could be done, the Committee formed the view that unscrupulous interference (together with intrinsic variables) could have caused the differences between measurement and re-measurement in the 19 horses.
The Committee noted there was no evidence of improper payments being received by anyone. It also accepted evidence that Dr Auerbach was not a dishonest man, taking into account his record of 23 years of honesty and excellence in the profession, unchallenged character references and the lack of any credible motive for him to act dishonestly.
Next, the Committee considered whether there had been signs of preparation malpractice which ought to have been picked up by any reasonably competent veterinary surgeon acting as an OM. The College submitted that Dr Auerbach had failed to take several steps including the amount of time and attention given to the animals he measured, and whether they might be drugged or sedated.
The Committee concluded from the evidence, including scientific papers, that mildly sedated animals may not be distinguishable from properly prepared animals; well-behaved horses were not an indication that something was amiss. The Committee accepted that Dr Auerbach took around 15-20 minutes to measure each of the horses presented on 9 January; and, in the absence of guidance from the JMB, it could not conclude this was rushed or unreasonable. Consequently, the Committee was unable to be satisfied, so that it was sure, that the allegation of failure to take sufficient steps to ensure the recording of correct measurements was proved.
"Accordingly, the decision of the Committee is that the facts set out in the Charge in relation to all the horses and ponies listed have not been proved to the necessary standard of proof," said Prof Peter Lees, speaking on behalf of the Committee as he directed the charges be dismissed.